Ok, so I generally agree with the content of the article.
I want to pick on the up front assumption though. He lists 4 costs that are paid -
---
The cost of downloading the file on the network
The cost of parsing and compiling the uncompressed file once downloaded
The cost of executing the JavaScript
The memory cost
---
What isn't mentioned is WHO'S paying those costs. And I think that generally matters when you're trying to convince companies with a profit motive that they're doing the wrong thing.
My issue is that of his 4 costs, 3 are all paid by the consumer of the product. The ONLY cost paid by the company is the extra network traffic to download the JS bundle. Even that can be optimized to a VERY small number if you're using good caching and have a cdn in place. The individual consumer might still wait for that network payload, but the company's objective cost is still going down.
So in general, what's the compelling argument that I should care about the rest of the article? None of it is bad advice. It just seems that the only real benefits I might get are two user features
- Faster sites
- Better battery usage
Users like those things, but they don't put them anywhere close to the top of the priority list for most products.
So I'm really walking away from this seeing a savings still. As a developer, I don't really love that opinion (I want to make good products that are fast and and small), but as a company stake-holder with a lot of possibly things to prioritize... This sounds like bad advice.
I want to pick on the up front assumption though. He lists 4 costs that are paid -
---
The cost of downloading the file on the network
The cost of parsing and compiling the uncompressed file once downloaded
The cost of executing the JavaScript
The memory cost
---
What isn't mentioned is WHO'S paying those costs. And I think that generally matters when you're trying to convince companies with a profit motive that they're doing the wrong thing.
My issue is that of his 4 costs, 3 are all paid by the consumer of the product. The ONLY cost paid by the company is the extra network traffic to download the JS bundle. Even that can be optimized to a VERY small number if you're using good caching and have a cdn in place. The individual consumer might still wait for that network payload, but the company's objective cost is still going down.
So in general, what's the compelling argument that I should care about the rest of the article? None of it is bad advice. It just seems that the only real benefits I might get are two user features
- Faster sites
- Better battery usage
Users like those things, but they don't put them anywhere close to the top of the priority list for most products.
So I'm really walking away from this seeing a savings still. As a developer, I don't really love that opinion (I want to make good products that are fast and and small), but as a company stake-holder with a lot of possibly things to prioritize... This sounds like bad advice.